|
Post by stephen on Jan 30, 2024 2:20:48 GMT
Those scenes are so brief, though -- I mean, the Calvin Coolidge scene alone is, what, twenty seconds? Peppering those little moments here and there to remind the audience that Mollie exists is barely lip service, especially when the movie is as long as it is. She's not absent, but she's also not omnipresent, either in screentime or in plot importance. The movie speeds through those scenes so quickly but God forbid we trim a scene like Ernest debating with Blackie Thompson about whether it was five or twenty dollars he owed him for what felt like an eternity.But we NEEDED more grumpy cat faces, when are you not going to understand this!!!! I still wonder what the fuck the improv that Scorsese and De Niro thought was too much.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 4,376
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Jan 30, 2024 2:21:56 GMT
There's no big conspiracy, man. It may seem crazy to you, but some of us are satisfied with the film and Gladstone's placement in the story. No bending over backwards necessary.
Also, mentioning Miranda Otto in The Thin Red Line in the same breath is insanely disingenuous. Come on.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jan 30, 2024 2:25:03 GMT
But we NEEDED more grumpy cat faces, when are you not going to understand this!!!! I still wonder what the fuck the improv that Scorsese and De Niro thought was too much.That story, as much as Scorsese tells it as a "funny thing on set" feels more telling than I think he intended.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 30, 2024 2:25:41 GMT
There's no big conspiracy, man. It may seem crazy to you, but some of us are satisfied with the film and Gladstone's placement in the story. No bending over backwards necessary. Also, mentioning Miranda Otto in The Thin Red Line in the same breath is insanely disingenuous. Come on. I'm glad you're satisfied with the movie, but come on -- I'm sure you've seen people say that because someone has the biggest female role in a movie, that automatically makes them a lead. And that's a fallacy.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 4,376
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Jan 30, 2024 2:31:50 GMT
There's no big conspiracy, man. It may seem crazy to you, but some of us are satisfied with the film and Gladstone's placement in the story. No bending over backwards necessary. Also, mentioning Miranda Otto in The Thin Red Line in the same breath is insanely disingenuous. Come on. I'm glad you're satisfied with the movie, but come on -- I'm sure you've seen people say that because someone has the biggest female role in a movie, that automatically makes them a lead. And that's a fallacy. Not gonna lie to you, I haven't seen anyone say that. All the Gladstone discussion I've witnessed is about her role in the story, with some screentime mentions here and there. Nothing about "biggest female role" or whatever, which is why the Otto name drop was crazy to me.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 30, 2024 2:36:19 GMT
"Would The Godfather have been as compelling a story if Fredo was the main character instead of Michael?" Fredo hardly does anything in the first Godfather. Ernest gets a lot to do in Killers and that's the point. I think that poster meant - in a hypothetical different movie where they make Fredo the lead, where Fredo then did more it would be less interesting to him / her ........ Here's the discussion of that analysis from that site for those into such marginalia .......... hollywood-elsewhere.com/misbegotten/#disqus_threadIf that's what the poster meant, then I really don't get where they're coming from. "Imagine if an entirely different movie with a different perspective and different plot had been made, would that be as compelling?" The hell if I know. But then what is the movie the poster thinks Killers should have been? I guess it'd be the one revolved around Hale since he is the one holding the influence and has clear motive, but is that the movie the poster actually wants to see or did he just hear one time that characters should have defined motives so the audience can follow their actions? Because while I'm sure the nine-millionth dissection on greed would have been good (Scorsese himself has done it multiple times to great effect), that just feels to me like it's offering an easier solution for the purposes of shrinking a complicated subject. One thing I didn't even mention before but I'm thinking about now is the poster's concern with audience empathy for Ernest. I do not know what questions they were thinking while watching Killers, but I know I at least was not thinking, "why is Ernest doing all this?" At the very least, it wasn't at the forefront of my mind because again, those are requesting easier solutions since they're small questions. There is no good reason for him to be doing all this: it was an obvious scheme with an endgame that seemed very likely to at best lead to the destruction of a family he loves and at worst lead to his own demise. I was less concerned with painting Ernest into a corner than I was with the fact that everyone else was also going with this plan - that the Osage were completely taken for granted that their value only went as far as how they could enrich the white men who descended like vultures onto the town. What makes Ernest the central character is the fact he is in the eye of the storm, the one with all the knowledge but none of the insight, just as easily taking for granted the intersection of capitalist greed and white supremacy that forms the backdrop of America's relationship with its own indigenous people.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 30, 2024 4:03:56 GMT
Gladstone is pretty clearly a lead here. She has a well defined arc and the movie is framed around their relationship. Screentime and line count isn't the issue.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 30, 2024 6:22:46 GMT
I don't get all this hoople. Didn't Anthony Hopkins get Lead Acting Oscar for Silence of the Lambs for similarly less screentime? Yes he did, and it just means that he was also in the wrong category. Whether he won or not is irrelevant to whether he was in the correct category. Louise Fletcher and Patricia Neal, too. There are multiple category frauds every single year, it's just more difficult to win when a supporting role campaigns for lead than the other way around.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 506
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Jan 30, 2024 16:35:44 GMT
All I'm saying is that Anthony Hopkins was awarded in Leading Actor with only 16 min screentime. And the arguments for both sides are really potato potata - as in equally strong and full of valid concedable points. So this "extra" backlash on her screen time is just not sitting well with me.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jan 30, 2024 16:44:47 GMT
A pretty good analysis of why the KotFM script kills how DiCap's performance is assessed underrated and screws in effect Gladstone, DiCap and the film. This is from a poster but Jeff Wells chose to highligght it on the site.......well said I think........ I have my issues with the writing of this film, but this isn't one of them, and seems simplistic. Those last three paragraphs could literally be a criticism of his last movie, it's essentially what the damn thing was about, and nobody minded it there.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 30, 2024 17:00:09 GMT
All I'm saying is that Anthony Hopkins was awarded in Leading Actor with only 16 min screentime. And the arguments for both sides are really potato potata - as in equally strong and full of valid concedable points. So this "extra" backlash on her screen time is just not sitting well with me. He actually had around 25 minutes of screentime (21% of the movie).
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 30, 2024 17:03:28 GMT
All I'm saying is that Anthony Hopkins was awarded in Leading Actor with only 16 min screentime. And the arguments for both sides are really potato potata - as in equally strong and full of valid concedable points. So this "extra" backlash on her screen time is just not sitting well with me. He actually had around 25 minutes of screentime (21% of the movie).I wonder how the board feels about David Niven's win (which I had no idea is 23 min only )...
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 30, 2024 17:08:55 GMT
I wonder how the board feels about David Niven's win (which I had no idea is 23 min only )... It's a pretty humdrum performance that shouldn't have been anywhere near win contention. That movie is also an ensemble piece where everyone should've run supporting.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 30, 2024 17:29:42 GMT
All I'm saying is that Anthony Hopkins was awarded in Leading Actor with only 16 min screentime. And the arguments for both sides are really potato potata - as in equally strong and full of valid concedable points. So this "extra" backlash on her screen time is just not sitting well with me. I don't begrudge Gladstone her nom at all and hope I didn't give that impression. She was probably my favorite thing about the movie. Obviously this is all subjective, but it *felt* like a supporting perf to me because Ernest was taking up most of the space in the narrative. She was on the outside of the plot looking in, especially in that last 90 minutes where she recovers from Ernest's poisoning mostly off-screen and retains affection for him despite everything he's done for reasons unexplored by Scorsese. The screentime stats just validated my sense that Mollie wasn't given enough depth or agency. It's nothing against Gladstone (who was exceptional).
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 30, 2024 17:32:11 GMT
I wonder how the board feels about David Niven's win (which I had no idea is 23 min only )... Love him! but he ain't lead and neither was Kerr. ScreenTimeCentral is such a cool resource. I've spent way too much time over there lol
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 4,376
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Feb 26, 2024 1:34:21 GMT
I just watched this with a group of 6 friends, and pretty much all of them thought Gladstone was leading. Make of that what you will.
|
|